"Air War": Political Advertising on San Francisco Bay Area Broadcast Television: November 2010 Election: Part One: Candidates

Television advertising is a major factor, if not the deciding factor, in many political contests. Whereas the "ground war" is waged with competing "get-out-the-vote/get-in-the-vote" campaigns with literal "boots on the ground," voter-by-voter at the precinct/retail/micro level, the "air war" is waged on broadcast television, cable TV and radio on the regional/wholesale/macro level. CalPolitiCal compiled all political ads that appeared during the 11 p.m. newscasts on four television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area on the six nights leading up to the November 2010 election.

The 11 p.m. “late news” generally is the most-watched local newscast produced by a particular television station, according to the November 2010 Nielsen ratings. CalPolitiCal’s analysis included the following four newscasts:

(1) KRON’s “KRON 4 News at 11 p.m.” (16,000 viewers, Independent/My Network station)

(2) KPIX’s “CBS 5 Eyewitness News at 11 p.m.” (49,000 viewers, CBS owned-and-operated)

(3) KGO’s “ABC 7 News at 11 p.m.” (48,000 viewers, ABC owned-and-operated)

(4) KNTV’s “NBC Bay Area News at 11 p.m.” (28,000 viewers, NBC owned-and-operated)

Omitted were KTVU’s “Ten o’clock News” (88,000 viewers), which airs an hour earlier, the Spanish language 11 p.m. local newscasts on KDTV (29,000 viewers, Univision) and KSTS (3,000 viewers, Telemundo) and the hour-long Mandarin News at 10 p.m. on KTSF (channel 26). The 11 p.m. newscasts on KPIX, KGO and KNTV are 35 minutes long; KRON’s 11 p.m. newscast generally ends by 11:30. Perhaps to take advantage of the abundant political advertising, KRON temporarily expanded its 11 p.m. newscast to 35 minutes during the weeks leading up to the November 2010 election.

The “Study Period” included six nights: Wednesday, October 27^th through Monday, November 1^st (Election Eve). Television commercials that ran immediately before, during and immediately after the 11 p.m. newscasts were included.

According to the California Secretary of State, 2.33 million votes were cast in the nine-county Bay Area in the November 2010 election. Nearly 995,000 ballots were precinct votes, cast on election day at polling places (43 percent of total). The majority of Bay Area votes, 1.33 million (57 percent), were cast by mail or dropped off at polling places on election day. (The rest of California collectively had a much higher percentage of precinct voters – 54 percent precinct voters vs. 46 percent vote-by mail.) Although a mere 43 percent of Bay Area voters cast votes in precincts, many of the vote-by-mail voters did not mark and return their ballots until the days leading up to the election, including election day. In November 2010, a higher-than-usual number of vote-by-mail voters are said to have held onto their ballots until election day. Therefore, many vote-by-mail voters likely were influenced by political advertising during the Study Period.

This article focuses on advertising for candidates for the various offices on the November 2010 ballot in the San Francisco Bay Area, especially governor and U.S. senator. A future article will discuss advertising for state and local ballot propositions.

A total of seven candidates ran a total of 125 television spots on Bay Area 11 p.m. newscasts during the Study Period. Most were 30-second spots; some 60-second spots were run by gubernatorial candidates. Fifty-nine spots were placed by gubernatorial candidates, 29 spots were placed by U.S. Senate candidates, nine spots were placed by a State Treasurer candidate (State Treasurer Bill Lockyer), 27 spots were placed by a congressional candidate (Rep. Jerry McNerney) and one Assembly candidate (Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan) placed an ad. No independent groups placed ads concerning candidate elections on 11 p.m. newscasts during the Study Period.

Jobs and the economy were major themes of political ads in the closing days of the 2010 general election campaign. In the gubernatorial race, Meg Whitman dubbed her opponent "Job Killer Jerry Brown." Brown stated in one of his television ads that Whitman had laid off 10 percent of eBay workers in her last year as C.E.O. In the U.S. Senate race, Carly Fiorina blamed incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer for California job losses; Boxer responded with an ad featuring some of the 30,000 Hewlett Packard employees laid off during Fiorina's tenure as HP C.E.O.

I. Gubernatorial Election: Jerry Brown (27) vs. Meg Whitman (32)

A. Meg Whitman Campaign for Governor – Republican – 32 spots

Meg Whitman spent $179 million (including $144 million of her own money) on her unsuccessful run for governor; much of her expenditures were for television advertising. Whitman ran three ads during the study period: “Orbit” (30 sec.), “Again” (30 sec.) and “I’m ready” (60 sec.). She ran a total of 32 spots on Bay Area 11 p.m. television newscasts during the study period.

(1) “Orbit” Ad (a.k.a. "Job Killer Jerry Brown") – anti-Brown

“Orbit” began appearing on Bay Area broadcast television on Monday, October 25^th. In this anti-Brown ad by Whitman, a narrator with a muffled male voice stated that the “real Brown plan” was “always more taxes, more spending, more lost jobs.” The tag line was "Job Killer Jerry Brown." The Whitman campaign characterized this ad as "highlighting Jerry Brown's real plan for more spending, more taxes and more lost jobs. More of the same old failure from Sacramento."

“Orbit” ran 11 times during the study period, on Wednesday, October 27^th and Thursday, October 28^th. It ran five times on KGO, three times on KPIX, two times on KRON and once on KNTV. By Friday, October 29^th, it had been replaced on the 11 p.m. newscasts with “Again.” However, the Whitman campaign did continue to run “Job Killer” at other times of the day through Election Eve.

 
(2) “Again” Ad – anti-Brown

The Whitman campaign characterized “Again” as an ad “focusing on Jerry Brown's CNN interview where he admitted he didn't have a plan when he ran for Governor of California and it was all a lie.” Most of the video came from Frank Sesno’s interview with Brown on the April 16, 1995 “CNN Late Edition” program. The ad ended with “NO PLAN THEN. NO PLAN NOW. IT’S ALL A LIE” on the screen. It first appeared on Friday night, replacing “Orbit,” and ran a total of 15 times on various 11 p.m. newscasts through Election Eve. It aired once apiece on KRON and KNTV, seven times on KPIX and six times on KGO.

(3) “I’m Ready” Ad – pro-Whitman

Whitman ran a one-minute positive ad called “I’m ready” six times during the six nights leading up to the election. According to the Whitman campaign, “In the 60-second spot, Whitman explains that she's running for Governor to "restore the California dream for everyone" and that she's prepared to take on California's tough problems.” For reasons unknown, it ran heavily on KNTV’s 11 p.m. newscast. It ran once per night on “NBC Bay Area News at 11 p.m.” from Wednesday to Sunday, but not on Election Eve. It ran once on “ABC 7 News at 11 p.m.,” on Sunday.

B. Jerry Brown for Governor – Democrat – 27 spots

 
The Jerry Brown campaign ran six different ads during the study period, a total of 27 spots:

(1) Pro-Brown - "Serious" consisted of Brown speaking directly to camera for most of its 30 seconds, describing his chief policy goals. This ad began running in early September, but disappeared for a few weeks. It did not run at the beginning of the study period on Wednesday, Oct. 27^th, but ran frequently thereafter. The Brown campaign apparently viewed this ad as important to undecided voters in the final days before the election. This ad ran 13 times from Oct. 28^th through Nov. 1^st (Election Eve), especially on KPIX and KGO. It ran six times on KPIX, five times on KGO and once each on KRON and KNTV. It was a nightly staple on KGO.

(2) Anti-Whitman/pro-Brown – “Why I Came to California 30 Years Ago” used Whitman's praise about how California functioned thirty years earlier to highlight the fact that Brown was then governor. This ad ran once during the Study Period, on Wednesday, October 27^th on KPIX,

(3) Anti-Whitman – “Capital Gains” was critical of Whitman's tax plan. It ran twice, once each on KGO and KNTV on Wednesday, October 27^th,

(4) Anti-Whitman – "Real Meg" focused on allegations of ethical lapses during Meg Whitman's service as C.E.O. of eBay and as board member of Goldman Sachs. It used U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio)'s description of a business deal connected to Whitman as "corrupt." The ad stressed that Whitman "paid herself $120 million right before the company (eBay) laid off 10 percent of its workers." The narrator's final words were, "We're choosing a governor. Shouldn’t character matter?” This ad ran three times during the Study Period, only on Friday, October 29^th. It ran once each on KRON, KPIX and KGO.

(5) Anti-Whitman – “Echo” consisted of side-by-side video of Schwarzenegger and Whitman stating very similar or identical political slogans and platitudes. It was regarded as one of Brown’s most effective television commercials. It ran four times during the study period from Oct. 28^th to Nov. 1^st on KRON, KPIX (two times) and KNTV (but not on KGO). It ran on KNTV on Election Eve.

(6) Anti-Whitman – “Polygraph” – ran four times during the study period. “Polygraph” became Brown’s anti-Whitman television ad of choice in the final days of the campaign. It ran once on KNTV on Oct. 31^st and once each on KRON, KPIX and KGO on Nov. 1^st (Election Eve).

II. United States Senate Race: Carly Fiorina (11) vs. Barbara Boxer (18)

A. Carly Fiorina for U.S. Senate – Republican – 11 spots

Carly Fiorina ran two ads on Bay Area 11 p.m. newscasts during the Study Period: "Label" and "Crushed."

(1) "Label" began with a narrator intoning, "Everyone is hurting," and featured various Californians speaking about party labels. The Fiorina campaign characterized the ad as, "Republican. Democrat. Independent. Party doesn't matter anymore--when bickering ends, solutions begin."

(2) "Crushed" was Fiorina's "closing argument" television ad in the Bay Area, running during the crucial "get-out-the-vote" days before election day. It stated that Senator Barbara Boxer failed to protect California jobs, that Boxer praised "the stimulus plan" (presumably referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) and criticized her for "trillions in deficits, billions in taxes." It implied that she was a "failed senator." The ad was laced with economic apocalypse imagery, complete with a sign that stated "STOP THE CONGRESS CREATED DUST BOWL." The anti-Boxer portion was in black-and-white; the end portion of the ad promoting Fiorina was in color. The narrator's final line: "We can change Washington, but not unless we change the people we send there."

Fiorina ran eleven spots during the Study Period, all on the two top-rated 11 p.m. newscasts: KPIX (5 ads) and KGO (6 ads). Fiorina ran no ads on KRON or KNTV.

The “Label” ad ran on Wednesday night on KGO's 11 p.m. newscast. From Thursday night through Sunday, Fiorina ran the “Crushed” ad every night on both the KPIX and KGO 11 p.m. newscasts. "Label" ran twice on KPIX "CBS 5 Eyewitness News at 11" on Saturday and twice on KGO "ABC 7 News at 11" on Sunday. Fiorina ran no ads on Election Eve (Monday); presumably her campaign either ran out of money or chose to focus its resources on other California television markets.

Before the Study Period, Fiorina ran the anti-Boxer ad called "Bickering." It appeared on KICU "Bay Area News at 7 p.m." on October 21st and on KGO "ABC 7 News at 11 p.m." on October 24th, for example. The campaign's statement on YouTube.com said that the ad was "highlighting Boxer's 28-year record of bitter partisanship and ineffective leadership in Washington. This is the fourth ad in Fiorina's statewide television advertising campaign." It began with a male narrator declaring, "California jobs gone and Barbara Boxer plays politics." It noted that "her hometown paper refused to endorse her" and quoted from the San Francisco Chronicle's non-endorsement editorial of Sen. Boxer on Sept. 26. "When bickering ends, solutions begin. No partisan games. I'll reach across the aisle, work with others, oppose my party if needed. Your agenda, not mine," Fiorina spoke directly to the viewer.

B. Barbara Boxer for U.S. Senate – Democrat – 18 spots

Senator Barbara Boxer ran a total of 18 spots during the six nights leading up to the election. She ran two ads, both anti-Fiorina:

(1) "Workers: Carly Fiorina Laid Off 30,000 at Hewlett Packard" featured former Hewlett Packard employees critical of Fiorina’s service as HP CEO and

(2) "Carly Fiorina: Out of Touch" criticized Fiorina's positions on assault weapons, offshore oil drilling, Social Security reform and abortion. It stressed that Fiorina "was endorsed by Sarah Palin." The closing tag line was “Carly Fiorina: Just Too Extreme for California.”

Each of these ad types ran interchangeably nine times during the study period.

The HP ad ran twice on KPIX, four times on KGO and three times on KNTV. The “Too Extreme” ad ran three times each on KPIX, KGO and KNTV. Boxer did not advertise at all on KRON’s 11 p.m. newscast during the study period. On Thursday, October 28^th, the HP ad ran on all three stations. On Sunday, October 31^st, the “Too Extreme” ad ran on all three stations. Only on KGO were both Boxer ads run on the same newscast, on Friday, October 29^th and on Saturday, October 30^th.

Boxer did not advertise on the 11 p.m. newscasts on Election Eve on KRON and KPIX. On Election Eve, she ran the HP employees ad once on KGO and the “Too Extreme” ad once on KNTV.

Boxer started advertising on Bay Area broadcast television on or about September 13th, beginning with her "Made in America" ad. That ad focused on veterans health care ("a combat care center" authorized through 2006 legislation), after-school programs (a 2001 law) and job creation ("I'm working to make California the leader in clean energy," she announced). It ended with her stating, "I want to see the words 'Made in America' again." The "Made in America" ad was Boxer's main "positive" ad in 2010.

III. California State Treasurer – Bill Lockyer – 9 spots

Bill Lockyer, the incumbent state treasurer who previously was the two-term state attorney general, was the only other statewide office seeker who advertised on 11 p.m. television newscasts in the San Francisco Bay Area on the six nights leading up to the general election. Lockyer spent $7.77 million in the 2009-10 election cycle. Lockyer ran nine spots during the six days, all on the top two-rated newscasts: “CBS 5 Eyewitness News” and “ABC 7 News.” He ran no ads on KRON or KNTV. All were the same ad: “How About the Truth for a Change?”

Lockyer’s motivation was mysterious. Just about every political observer assumed that he would easily defeat his Republican challenger (Mimi Walters) and that a television advertising campaign was unnecessary, especially in the Bay Area, which is his political base (he represented portions of the East Bay in the Assembly and Senate from 1972 to 1998). His wife Nadia Lockyer was locked in a close race for Alameda County supervisor, so it is possible that his advertisements served indirectly to boost the “Lockyer” name and his wife’s campaign.

Perhaps his ads did help him to achieve what may have been his goal: bragging rights as the top vote-getter in the country (of all candidates in all states) in the November 2010 election. Lockyer received 5,433,222 votes, around 5,000 more votes than Jerry Brown did. (The top statewide vote-getter in Texas, incumbent Comptroller of Public Accounts Susan Combs, received 3,307,935 votes.)

Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor ran ads earlier in October on San Francisco Bay Area broadcast television, but he apparently stopped his television advertising in the area before the study period. "Abel Maldonado's Record On The Environment" was Newsom's main television ad in the Bay Area when he stopped advertising. It criticized Lt. Gov. Maldonado's environmental record in the Legislature. "Maldonado sided with the Texas oil companies," a male narrator declared, with an oil refinery and the Texas state flag behind a picture of Maldonado. Newsom addressed the camera with waves crashing behind him on a beach, "I've got a message for Texas oil companies: 'Don't mess with California.' As Lieutenant Governor, I'm going to fight hard to protect our air, our water and our coastline." The final tag line was "Don't mess with California." This ad appeared on KICU's "Bay Area News at 7 p.m." on Oct. 21st and on KTVU's "Ten o'clock News" on Oct. 22nd, one week before the Study Period.

The California Attorney General race ended up as the tightest statewide contest in California in 2010, yet neither Democrat Kamala Harris nor Republican Steve Cooley advertised on Bay Area 11 p.m. television newscasts during the Study Period. Harris ran ads during the primary election campaign in May and June.

IV. U.S. House of Representatives: 11^th Congressional District: Jerry McNerney (Democrat) – 27 spots vs. David Harmer (Republican) – zero spots

The closest congressional race in California in 2010 was in the 11^th Congressional District, which includes the southern and eastern suburban and rural fringes of the San Francisco Bay Area (Morgan Hill, Tri-Valley, Brentwood, Discovery Bay) and most of San Joaquin County (in the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto television market). The voting population is split roughly 50-50 between the two media markets. The population of the 11^th Congressional District accounts for just 3.9 percent of the nine-county Bay Area population (based on 2000 census data), so McNerney’s message was irrelevant (or “wasted”) for all but a few Bay Area television viewers.

Incumbent Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) was the only person to defeat an incumbent legislator in California state or federal office in the past decade when he prevailed over Rep. Richard Pombo (D-Tracy) in 2006. In 2010, Republican David Harmer (R-San Ramon) sought to ride the national Republican wave and oust McNerney. Harmer had run for Congress unsuccessfully twice before, first in Utah in 1996 and second in California’s 10^th Congressional District in the 2009 special election.

McNerney ran 27 spots on Bay Area 11 p.m. television newscasts over the six-day study period; he tied Jerry Brown as the No. 2 political candidate advertiser (the two Jerrys accounted for roughly two out of every five political candidate ads on Bay Area 11 p.m. newscasts during the Study Period). All were the same ad – an anti-Harmer commercial called “Abolish the Public Schools.” It relied heavily on a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Harmer that was published on August 27, 2000. The ad emphasized that Harmer was a “Corporate Lawyer” and bluntly stated, “David Harmer is just too radical.” The latter half of the ad stated that McNerney was “Protecting Local Schools from Devastating Cuts” and that he was “Endorsed by California Teachers” and many local newspapers.

Just before the study period, McNerney ran a slightly different version of the ad that said that he was “a moderate.” That ad began running on or about October 22nd. By the beginning of the Study Period, McNerney had modified the ad to stress the word “Independence,” drawn from a Contra Costa Times endorsement editorial. Fifteen of McNerney’s 27 ads (more than half) ran on “ABC 7 News at 11 p.m.” McNerney saturated KGO-TV’s broadcast on Election Eve (Monday night), with four spots, running at just about every commercial break (including the pre-newscast and post-newscast/ “Nightline” lead-in breaks). McNerney ran six spots apiece on “CBS 5 Eyewitness News at 11 p.m.” and “NBC Bay Area News at 11” during the study period. McNerney ran no ads on KRON 4 News at 11 during the six-day period.

McNerney ran other television ads earlier in the fall, but relied exclusively on “Abolish the Public Schools” in the final days of the campaign. The earlier ads were “Patriot,” “File” and “Earned It.” “Patriot” was the only ad that was completely pro-McNerney, completely without an anti-Harmer message. Stressing McNerney’s advocacy for veterans’ issues, it began McNerney’s fall advertising campaign.

"Earned It" used a local World War II veteran to criticize Harmer's plan to privatize the Social Security program. This ad appeared on KICU's "Bay Area News at 7 p.m." on Oct. 21st and on KTVU's "Ten o'clock News" on Oct. 22nd, one week before the Study Period. By Oct. 23rd, and for the remaining two weeks of the campaign, "Abolish the Public Schools" had become McNerney's chief television ad.

Harmer did not run a single television commercial on a Bay Area 11 p.m. newscast in the six nights leading up to the election. Harmer instead focused his resources on the Sacramento-Stockton television market. There were no television commercials placed by independent groups concerning the CD-11 election during the study period on Bay Area 11 p.m. newscasts.

Harmer won in the San Joaquin County portion of the district, but McNerney prevailed narrowly overall by under 2,700 votes on the strength of his Bay Area returns. McNerney’s superiority in the Bay Area “air war” no doubt contributed substantially to his victory, but it was a costly campaign tactic.

V. State Legislative District Races – Joan Buchanan for Assembly – 1 spot

The sole competitive state legislative race in the November 2010 election in the San Francisco Bay Area was in the 15^th Assembly District, which includes Walnut Creek, the San Ramon Valley, Livermore, Oakley and Brentwood, along with the Mountain House, Galt and Elk Grove areas in the Central Valley. It had been a Republican district until Democrat Joan Buchanan defeated San Ramon Mayor Abram Wilson when the seat was open in 2008. Assemblywoman Buchanan again defeated Wilson in their re-match in 2010.

Buchanan advertised on Bay Area broadcast television in the final weeks of the campaign, a rarity for a state legislative race in the region. A mere five percent of the Bay Area’s population resides in the 15^th Assembly District (according to 2000 census data), so Buchanan was casting a very wide net to catch the relatively small number of viewers eligible to vote in her district.

Buchanan ran just one spot on Bay Area 11 p.m. television newscasts during the Study Period, on Saturday, October 30^th on KPIX. She also ran ads on other channels at other parts of the day, including during the San Francisco Giants World Series games on KTVU.

Gov. Meg Whitman or Gov. Jerry Brown? Look to Los Baños & Other Bellwether Cities

Who will be sworn in as the State of California’s 39th governor in January 2011: Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman? The candidates’ performance in the gubernatorial “bellwether” cities, especially Los Baños, Cathedral City and Morro Bay, will determine the outcome.

CalPolitical has analyzed statistics for all six gubernatorial elections in the past twenty years (1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006), comparing city-level data with statewide returns. Each percentage point that a city deviated from the statewide percentage for the Democratic and Republican candidate was summed to determine a “cumulative deviation” score (expressed as “points”). A city that perfectly matched the statewide percentages for the Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates in all six elections would have a score of zero (0.0) points. This analysis identified the fifteen cities that most closely mirror the statewide outcome:

1. Los Baños (Merced County), 14.6 points
2. Cathedral City (Riverside County), 16.8 points
3. Morro Bay (San Luis Obispo County), 18.9 points
4. Winters (Yolo County), 19.6 points
5. Newman (Stanislaus County), 20.2 points
6. Dublin (Alameda County), 21.7 points
7. Morgan Hill (Santa Clara County), 22.0 points
8. Claremont (Los Angeles County), 23.1 points
9. Los Gatos (Santa Clara County), 26.3 points
10. Merced (Merced County), 27.7 points
11. Duarte (Los Angeles County), 28.7 points
12. Kerman (Fresno County), 29.6 points
13. South Lake Tahoe (El Dorado County), 29.7 points
14. San Diego (San Diego County), 29.9 points
15. Riverbank (Stanislaus County), 30.1 points

Los Baños - No. 1 Gubernatorial Bellwether City

As Los Baños votes, so goes the California governorship. Many Californians best know that western Merced County community (26,000 population in 2000) as a “pit stop” on Highway 152 between Interstate 5 and State Route 99 -- the four-lane Highway 152 expressway literally runs through the heart of downtown. Some residents commute to Silicon Valley jobs, but agribusiness is the local economic engine. In the late 1800s, Los Baños was the headquarters of the immense Miller & Lux agricultural empire; today this is remembered via a statue and cattle sculptures in Henry Miller Plaza.

In 2006, Los Baños voted Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) 56.9% - Phil Angelides (D) 39.0%, very close to the statewide figures (55.9% R-38.9% D). In 1998, in the Democratic landslide, Los Banos voted Gray Davis (D) 60.0%-Dan Lungren (R) 37.9%, compared to 58.0%-38.4% statewide.

The overall population of Los Baños cannot be described as a demographic microcosm of California. In 2000, it was 50.4% Hispanic/Latino versus 32.4% statewide. It has smaller African-American (4.3%) and Asian (2.3%) populations than California as a whole (6.7% and 10.9% respectively statewide).

In terms of voter registration (as of May 24, 2010), Los Baños is more Democratic, less "Independent" and just as Republican as the statewide electorate (Los Baños: 49.2% D, 30.5% R, 16.5% Decline-to-State/Independent vs. California: 44.5% D, 30.8% R, 20.2% DTS/Ind). Exhibiting quintessential San Joaquin Valley Democratic behavior, many Los Baños Democrats regularly vote for Republican candidates -- they are actually "independent" voters who have not bothered to abandon their Democratic registration (known as "Valleycrats").

Four other San Joaquin Valley cities are in top 15: Newman (6th), Merced (10th), Kerman (12th) and Riverbank (15th).

Cathedral City - No. 2 Gubernatorial Bellwether City

Cathedral City, located in Riverside County’s Coachella Valley, is the No. 2 gubernatorial bellwether city. It had 43,000 population in 2000 and is now majority Hispanic/Latino (50.0 percent in 2000). Many of its working class residents provide services to the wealthy enclaves in Rancho Mirage (now home of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, formerly of Marin County) and Palm Desert.

Cathedral City voted Davis 58.1%–Lungren 38.1% in 1998 (vs. 58.0%-38.4% statewide) and Schwarzenegger 56.6% –Angelides 39.4% in 2006 (vs. 55.9%-38.9% statewide). Its neighbors Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs respectively ranked as the 23rd-best and 47th-best bellwethers. Other nearby communities in the Coachella Valley are among the staunchest partisan stalwarts: Coachella (356 "points," 13th from bottom of bellwether list) reliably votes Democratic; Indian Wells (338 points, 18th from bottom) is a reliably Republican city.

In 2008, California supported Proposition 8, 52.2%-47.8%. The result in Cathedral City was relatively close, 52.7%-47.3%.

Of the top 25 gubernatorial bellwether cities, Cathedral City has the highest Republican registration (39.3%) and the smallest gap percentage-wise between Democratic and Republican registration (2.4 percentage points).

Morro Bay - No. 3 Gubernatorial Bellwether City

Morro Bay, the No. 3 gubernatorial bellwether, is a small city on the San Luis Obispo County coast. Morro Rock, a 581-foot volcanic plug, looms over the community. A major trans-Pacific cable, a conduit for much of the telephone and internet traffic between North America and Asia, makes landfall nearby. Morro Bay is the most politically moderate coastal city in California. In 1994, it voted Pete Wilson (R) 55.7%-Kathleen Brown (D) 40.4% (vs. 55.2%-40.6% statewide).

Registration-wise, Morro Bay is slightly less Democratic and more Republican than California as a whole (Morro Bay: 41.1% D, 32.8% R, 19.8% DTS/Ind vs. California: 44.5% D, 30.8% R, 20.2% DTS/Ind). It has twice the proportion of registered Greens (1.4% Morro Bay vs. 0.7% statewide).

Other Cities: Dublin, Morgan Hill, Los Gatos, Claremont, San Diego

Dublin, the No. 6 bellwether (30,000 population in 2000), is in the independent-minded Tri-Valley section of otherwise reliably Democratic Alameda County. In 1998, it voted Davis 58.5%–Lungren 37.9% (vs. 58.0%-38.4% statewide). Nearly one-quarter of Dublin's voters (24.7%) are registered as "Decline to State." The neighboring cities of Livermore and Pleasanton rank as the 67th- and 75th-best gubernatorial bellwethers.

The other Bay Area cities at the top of the gubernatorial bellwether list are Morgan Hill (No. 7) and Los Gatos (No. 9). Both are in the 15th Senate District, which is the only Bay Area state legislative district represented by a Republican (newly-elected Sen. Sam Blakeslee).

Ranking eighth on the gubernatorial bellwether list, Claremont is perhaps the most moderate “college town” in California. Home to the seven-member Claremont Colleges consortium, Claremont is not a Democratic bastion like Berkeley, Davis, Palo Alto and Santa Cruz. The neighboring city of Montclair ranks 73rd on the bellwether list. Duarte, the second-best gubernatorial bellwether in Los Angeles County (11th statewide), also is located in the San Gabriel Valley.

Kerman, the 12th-best gubernatorial bellwether, has the highest Democratic registration and lowest "decline-to-state" registration among the top 25 cities (49.5% D vs. 32.4% R vs. 11.4% Decline-to-State).

South Lake Tahoe, thirteenth on the gubernatorial bellwether list, has the highest "decline-to-state" registration (26.7%) and lowest Republican registration (24.2%) among the top 15 cities.

San Diego, California’s second-most populous city (1.22 million in 2000), is the only city over 100,000 population on the top-15 gubernatorial bellwether list. Ranked 14th, it has large concentration of “swing voters.” Although Pete Wilson was mayor from 1970 to 1982, San Diego favored him by just moderate amounts above his statewide margins in his 1990 and 1994 gubernatorial bids. In 1990, San Diego voted Pete Wilson 52.4%-Dianne Feinstein 41.8% (vs. 49.3%-45.8% statewide). In 1994, San Diego re-elected Wilson over Kathleen Brown, 57.1%-38.5% (vs. 55.2%-49.6% statewide).

Ventura: Distorted by McClintock's "Favorite Son" Vote in 2003 Recall Election

Although Ventura was the city that most closely reflected the statewide returns in 2006 (Schwarzenegger 55.8%-Angelides 39.1% in Ventura vs. statewide 55.9%-38.9%), it ranked as the 17th-best bellwether since 1990. The greatest deviation occurred in the 2003 special gubernatorial recall election, when Tom McClintock won 22.2% of the Ventura city vote versus 13.4% statewide. McClintock was then Ventura’s state senator, causing a “favorite son” distortion of its results.


"LaMOrinda" Area of Contra Costa County: Cluster of Gubernatorial Bellwethers

The "Lamorinda" area of central Contra Costa County includes Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. Walnut Creek is to the immediate east. Three of these cities are relatively high on the gubernatorial bellwether list: Lafayette (27th), Walnut Creek (32nd) and Orinda (51st). (Moraga is out of the top 100 -- it has moderated, but has been more Republican than its neighbors.) These communities were heavily Republican until the 1980s, but have become more "middle-of-the-road" in the 1990s and '00s. All four cities favored Pete Wilson over Dianne Feinstein in 1990, all by larger margins than statewide. In 1998, all four supported Gray Davis over Dan Lungren, but support for Davis lagged his statewide figure. In 2003, all four cities backed Schwarzenegger over Cruz Bustamante.

Lamorinda looms large on the political map, far exceeding its size. Its wealthy and highly-educated citizens are politically-active. They are regular voters and generous in their political campaign contributions. The Lamorinda Democratic Club has one of the largest memberships of any political club in California; gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides addressed the club on his five-day, 19-city campaign launch tour in March 2005. Although Lamorinda has half the population of Antioch, its turnout in the 2006 election exceeded Antioch by 31 percent. Orinda city councilman Steve Glazer is Jerry Brown's campaign manager.


Long Beach, Fremont, Concord: No Longer Gubernatorial Bellwethers

Several cities were once "bellwethers" in gubernatorial elections, but now have fallen back into the Democratic pack. These include large "suburban" cities that have become more ethnically diverse in the past thirty years (and therefore usually more Democratic).

Long Beach once was a Republican-leaning gubernatorial bellwether, but now has a Democratic trend. It ranks 39th on the bellwether list. In 1990, Long Beach voted Wilson 48.6%-Feinstein 46.6% (vs. 49.3%-45.8% statewide). In 1998, it stunned hometown Republican candidate Dan Lungren by favoring Gray Davis by wider than Davis’s statewide margin: Davis 62.4%-Lungren 34.2% (vs. 58.0%-38.4% statewide). Lungren represented a Long Beach-based congressional seat from 1979 to 1988. Lungren opted to return to Congress in 2004 from a seat in the Sacramento area.

Fremont, in southern Alameda County, also has lost its gubernatorial bellwether status (ranking well out of the top 100). In the narrow 1982 election, Fremont helped to decide the outcome, voting George Deukmejian 48.9%-Tom Bradley 47.7% (vs. 49.3%-48.1% statewide). In 2003 and 2006, Schwarzenegger’s percentages in Fremont (2003-36.8%, 2006-49.4%) were much smaller than his statewide figures (48.6%, 56.9%). As of May 2010, Fremont had the eight-highest "decline-to-state" registration in California (29.5%) -- Cupertino, a fellow "Silicon Valley" community, had the highest (38.0%) and neighboring Milpitas was third (33.0%).

Concord, in central Contra Costa County, was once a gubernatorial bellwether, too. In 1982, Concord voted Deukmejian 49.3%-Bradley 47.3% (vs. 49.3%-48.1% statewide). For 1990 to 2006, it is the 88th-best bellwether.


Caveat: Cities Incorporated After 1990 Excluded

The top-15 list excludes cities that were incorporated after 1990. For example, Laguna Woods (incorporated 1999, Orange County), Oakley (incorporated 1999, Contra Costa County) and Windsor (incorporated 1992, Sonoma County) would have ranked in or near the top fifteen if complete data were available.


Compton: Least Predictive City in California Gubernatorial Elections

The five cities that are least predictive of California gubernatorial elections are: Compton in Los Angeles County (456 points), East Palo Alto in San Mateo County (426 points), Berkeley in Alameda County (425 points), Inglewood in Los Angeles County (399 points) and Oakland in Alameda County (398 points). All five are Democratic stalwarts. The Republican stalwart city that is least predictive is Villa Park in Orange County (357 points). Rolling Hills on L.A. County's Palos Verdes Peninsula (17th from bottom, 339 points) and Indian Wells in Riverside County (18th from bottom, 338 points) are the 2nd- and 3rd-lowest Republican cities on the gubernatorial bellwether list.

President Obama's "Green Jobs" Visit to Fremont, Calif.

President Barack Obama visited the San Francisco Bay Area on May 25th and 26th for fundraisers for the re-election campaign committee for U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer in San Francisco and to tour the Solyndra, Inc. solar panel manufacturing facility in Fremont.

Obama is not the first president to visit a “green jobs” facility in southern Alameda County. On June 18, 1992, President George H.W. Bush held a question-and-answer session with employees of the Evergreen Environmental Services Oil Refinery in the neighboring city of Newark.

As Obama travels about the Bay Area, his advisers certainly will remind him that the region usually is a Democratic stronghold. He garnered 2.22 million votes in the nine-county Bay Area in November 2008. If the Bay Area were a state, it would have ranked ninth in total Obama votes, just ahead of New Jersey and North Carolina. It would have ranked first in percentage of the vote for Obama, 73.8 percent, ahead of Obama’s top state of Hawaii (71.8 percent), and far ahead of his national percentage (53.1 percent).

Obama so dominated coastal northern California that he lost just six cities in the coastal counties extending from Santa Barbara to the Oregon border: Solvang, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Paso Robles, Rio Dell and Fortuna. Obama won every city in the nine-county Bay Area plus every city in Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, Merced, Lake and Mendocino counties. In the Bay Area, Danville, Atherton and Hillsborough had not favored a Democrat for president in at least forty years, but decisively favored Obama in 2008.

Fremont, the site of the Solyndra plant, however, has not been a reliably Democratic city. For most of the late 20th century, it was a “bellwether” city, favoring the winner of most presidential and statewide elections. Richard Nixon defeated McGovern in Fremont in 1972 and Ronald Reagan won Fremont in 1980 and 1984. Republicans George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson won Fremont in their respective gubernatorial and senatorial bids in 1982. George H.W. Bush narrowly defeated Michael Dukakis in Fremont in 1988 (50.9% to 49.1%), as did Democratic U.S. Senator Alan Cranston against Republican Ed Zschau in the close 1986 Senate election (51.4% Cranston vs. 48.6% Zschau).

By the 1990s and 2000s, Fremont was solidly Democratic in presidential elections. Al Gore ran 12.6 percentage points ahead of his national percentage in Fremont in 2000; John Kerry ran 18.1 percentage points ahead of his national percentage there. Obama won 71.1 percent of the Fremont vote, 18.0 percentage points above his national percentage. However, Governor Schwarzenegger won Fremont by an 1,881 vote margin in 2006 (Schwarzegger lost to Democrat Cruz Bustamante by 1,828 votes in the 2003 recall gubernatorial election).

Fremont was the most equi-balanced city in percentage terms in the Proposition 8 (“marriage equality” constitutional amendment) election in 2008. “No on 8” won by just a 33-vote margin out of 73,683 ballots cast – a 50.0%-50.0% split.

Stunning Mass. U.S. Senate Election -- Independents Flee Democratic Fold -- Missed Early Warning Signs in 2009 Calif. CD-10 Special Election

The U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts on January 19th was a stunning rebuke of the national Democratic agenda by independent voters in a state that has voted Democratic in 11 of the last 13 presidential elections. Scott Brown, a Republican state senator, defeated state Attorney General Martha Coakley, 52% to 47%. The Senate seat, held by Democratic brothers John F. Kennedy and Edward “Ted” Kennedy for most of the past 57 years, was last held by a Republican in 1953. John F. Kennedy’s 1952 victory over incumbent Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. was then a shocking outcome, as an Irish Catholic defeated a scion of one of the greatest political dynasties in New England history.

Massachusetts last elected a Republican senator, Edward Brooke (the first of just two African-American U.S. senators elected in the 20th century), in 1972. Unlike Brown, who is a conservative Republican, Senator Brooke was a moderate. Fifteen years have passed since Massachusetts elected any Republican to the U.S. Congress; since Reps. Peter Blute and Peter Torkildsen were defeated in 1996, no Republican has won any of the Bay State's ten congressional districts. (However, a series of Republican governors, including William Weld and Mitt Romney, served from 1991 to 2007.)

There were strong warning signs of independents’ disaffection with the national Democratic message in California’s 10th Congressional District special election in November 2009, yet most political observers ignored or overlooked them. First, the city of Dixon (Solano County), a presidential bellwether, favored the Republican candidate by an astonishing 15 percentage points. Second, a massive pro-Republican “get out the vote” effort materialized on election day – resulting a “win” by the Republican candidate at polling places (overturned by the Democratic candidate’s votes in the much larger vote-by-mail).

In the 2009 special CD-10 election, Democratic Lt. Gov. John Garamendi soundly defeated conservative Republican David Harmer, 52.8% to 42.8%, yet like an iceberg, much lurked beneath the surface. In May 2009, voter registration in CD-10 was 47% Democrats, 29% Republicans and 20% Decline to State (Independent). Clearly, David Harmer attracted many votes outside of his party.

Most independents apparently favored Harmer. In the October 2009 Survey USA/KPIX poll, independent voters comprised 16 percent of the “likely and actual voters.” They favored Harmer over Garamendi, 42% to 35% (18% of independent voters said that they voted for one of the three third-party candidates). Harmer attracted 10 percent of Obama voters; Garamendi won 5 percent of McCain voters.

California CD-10 Special Election - Overlooked Factor No. 1: The Dixon Phenomenon

The biggest and most overlooked warning sign for national Democrats in the 2009 California CD-10 special election came from the city of Dixon in Solano County, at the northern end of the district. Dixon is known to most northern Californians as a city (or dismissively as a “cow town”) in the Interstate 80 corridor between Vacaville and Davis. Dixon is technically in the nine-county Bay Area, but it behaves politically more like a middle-of-the-road Central Valley community (akin to Modesto, Fresno, Manteca and Tracy). Political observers know Dixon as one of California’s best “bellwether” cities – as Dixon goes, so goes the nation.

Dixonians have a remarkable ability to select the winner of a presidential election, closely mirroring the national margin of victory. According to CalPolitical’s analysis of voting returns from all California cities for all presidential elections from 1964 to 2008, Dixon is the sixth-best presidential bellwether in the Golden State (behind Blythe, Rio Vista, Vacaville, Barstow and Wasco).

Dixon supported the electoral vote winner in 11 of the past 12 presidential elections, with the exception of 1976 when it backed President Gerald Ford over challenger Jimmy Carter. In 2008, it favored Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain, 53.0% to 45.0%, very close to the national margin of 53.1% to 45.8%. Four years earlier, Dixon was more strongly Republican than the nation, favoring Republican George W. Bush over Democrat John Kerry, 54.5% to 44.6% (compared to the national margin of 51.0% to 48.5%).

In the CD-10 special election in November 2009, Dixon favored Republican Harmer over Democrat Garamendi by 54% to 39%, an astonishing 15 percentage point landslide for the Republican. Some form of political earthquake apparently happened in Dixon (and, by proxy, the nation) between November 2008 and November 2009, yet no one apparently took notice until the January 2010 Massachusetts Senate election.

When Dixon speaks like this, political pundits should be listening. They should be descending upon the community, engaging with the man- and woman-on-the-street and asking a series “why?” questions. Dixon and neighboring Vacaville (the Golden State’s third-best presidential bellwether) should be regarded by political elites as more than a mere “pit stop” on the freeway between the Bay Area and Sacramento. The same goes for nearby Rio Vista (second-best presidential bellwether). (Perhaps to muffle their unpredictable political voice, political mapmakers “gerrymandered” the neighboring communities of Vacaville, Dixon and Rio Vista into three congressional districts.)

The last time that a Republican presidential nominee defeated a Democratic presidential nominee by such a wide margin in Dixon was 22 percentage points in the Ronald Reagan re-election landslide of 1984 (61.3% for Republican Reagan to 38.7% for Democrat Walter Mondale). If Dixon is on a path to favor the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 by the same margin that it favored the Republican congressional candidate in 2009, then President Obama would suffer one of the worst defeats in modern American history.

Dixon’s ability to maintain its presidential bellwether status is especially remarkable given the community’s rapid population growth and demographic changes over the past half century. Its population was a mere 2,970 in 1960 compared to more than 17,000 today.

California CD-10 Special Election - Overlooked Factor No. 2: Massive Republican Get Out the Vote Campaign

The Republican “get out the vote” effort on November 3, 2009 in California’s 10th Congressional District was remarkably effective. Some pundits dismissed the Republican’s strong showing as a “low-turnout special election fluke,” but it is clear that Republicans (and Republican-leaning independents) were much more energized than Democrats on election day itself.

Although Democrat John Garamendi won the overall vote (52.8%-42.8%), Republican David Harmer defeated Garamendi in the polling place vote by three percentage points (49.7% Harmer to 46.7% Garamendi). In Alameda County (mostly Livermore), Garamendi won the vote-by-mail by 400 ballots, but lost the county due to Harmer’s 1,500 margin in the polling place vote.

Fortunately for Garamendi, polling place ballots accounted for just 31 percent of the 137,786 votes cast for the five major candidates. Just under 69 percent of ballots were cast as absentees/vote-by-mail. Garamendi handily defeated Harmer among absentees/vote-by-mail, 55.6% Garamendi to 39.7% Harmer.

Harmer won the Livermore area by a wide margin, 52.5% to 44.5%. Harmer was the first Republican federal candidate to win Livermore since George W. Bush defeated Al Gore there in 2000 (by just 44 ballots, 49.1% Bush to 48.9% Gore); in 2000 Livermore was the third-best presidential bellwether city in California (behind Barstow and Blythe). Livermore had trended Democratic during the 2000s, backing John Kerry over Bush by 0.9 percentage points in 2004 (the first time that Livermore had voted for a losing Democratic presidential nominee in more than 40 years) and Obama over McCain by 16 percentage points in 2008 (57.3% Obama vs. 40.9% McCain). Livermore last voted for a Republican for the U.S. House in 1996, as incumbent Rep. Bill Baker (R) defeated Democratic challenger Ellen Tauscher there, 50.7% to 44.1% (Tauscher won the district overall, due entirely to her margin in the Democrat-vote rich Castro Valley and Ashland areas).

Most journalists missed the story of the election day “surge” by Republicans and allied independents in CD-10. Polling place returns did not come in until late on election night, after the filing deadlines for many political reporters.

The 2009 California 10th Congressional District election (especially the Dixon and Livermore returns) and the 2010 Massachusetts U.S. Senate special election suggest a trend that should worry national Democrats and hearten national Republicans – independents, an important part of the Obama coalition in 2008, appear to be disenchanted presently with the national Democratic agenda. Republicans and their transitory independent supporters simply have a greater “urge to win” and therefore a greater urge to turn out to vote than Democrats. If current trends continue, this bodes poorly for Democrats across the nation in November 2010.

National Democrats Need to Resolve the Health Care Debate, Then "Turn the Page"

If the national Democrats want to avoid this fate, they need to do a much better job engaging with citizens across the country, especially independent voters. Many legislators, both Republican and Democratic, adamently refuse to communicate directly with the constituents that they ostensibly represent. Some have held no town hall meetings of any form (in person or telephonically) in several years, if ever. Some members of Congress today are in office simply because they are "members of Congress;" they are entrenched incumbents in single-party districts who believe that they are never going to leave office involuntarily. In the long term, voters will not tolerate this type of arrogance and smug detachment.

First, Democrats need to explain precisely why the health care system needs to be reformed and how their proposed reforms will benefit a wide cross-section of Americans. Democrats need to inform their constituents that the status quo, health care by for-profit "big insurance, is unacceptable; many citizens mistakenly think that they now have coverage until they learn in their hour of need that they do not. The Democrats also need to demonstrate to voters that they will experience immediate benefits from any health care reform; a mis-perception persists that no reform of substance will take effect until 2013 or 2014. They also need to explain how health care reform is relevant at a time when one in ten Americans is unemployed and one in six is either unemployed or underemployed.

Second, Democrats need to "turn the page" as rapidly as possible from the thicket of the health care policy debate to the "jobs and economy" issue, which has much greater relevance to the typical voter. When people do not have jobs in order to finance their short-term sustenance, their food and shelter on a week-to-week basis, they really could care less about health care, unless or until they become seriously ill.

Third, most Americans are confused by the ups and downs of the financial services industry in the past eighteen months. The industry received a series of "bailouts," and now seems to have recovered, if stock market indexes and employee bonuses are any indication. Meanwhile, the average citizen is still coping with unemployment, government service cuts (from school closures to park shut-downs) and other "lagging indicators."

Many people had been clamoring throughout 2009 for public explanations and public "mea culpas" from the "titans of industry" behind the crisis, yet only now in 2010 is the public accountability process beginning through the Angelides Commission. This "reality TV" series should have been programmed months ago, in summer 2009, in a setting with appropriate historical gravitas, such as the Senate Caucus Room, the site of the 1970s Ervin Watergate inquiry and the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings, preempting soap operas on network daytime television. It could have had all the drama and import of the Pecora Commission hearings of the 1930s, which exposed for posterity the shenanigans of 1920s Wall Street.

Hearing dates in mid-2009 would have allowed a bipartisan team of Democratic and Republican legislators to devote early 2010 to crafting and passing legislation to address legal problems exposed in the hearings. Today many Americans are still as baffled as they were in late 2008 as to how and why this crisis at the very root of the "Great Recession" began; if "John/Jane Q. Public" does not understand the problem, then he or she certainly will not understand any solution proposed by Congress -- therefore, the status quo dominated by the Wall Street financial interests will go on.

President Bill Clinton & California's 10th Congressional District

Former President Bill Clinton endorsed California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi at the Basque Cultural Center in South San Francisco on October 6th. Garamendi is the Democratic nominee for the special election for California’s 10th Congressional District on November 3rd. Garamendi served in the Clinton Administration as Deputy Secretary of the Interior from 1995 to 1998.

Clinton is a pivotal figure in the political history of the 10th Congressional District. In 1992, he was the first Democratic presidential nominee to win California since the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964. Clinton won thirteen of the fifteen CD-10 cities then in existence (he lost only Moraga and San Ramon; Oakley would not be incorporated as a city until 1999). Michael Dukakis, the Democratic presidential nominee four years earlier, won just six of the fifteen cities.

In 1992, Clinton won three cities in today’s 10th District that had not voted Democratic since Johnson's trouncing of conservative Republican Barry Goldwater 28 years earlier: Dixon, Livermore and Walnut Creek. He also won Lafayette and Orinda, both of which had never supported a Democrat for president since their incorporation (in 1968 and 1985 respectively). It was an especially amazing transformation since the Bush-Dukakis election four years earlier. From 1988 to 1992, George H.W. Bush lost 24 percentage points in Livermore, 23 points in Walnut Creek, Lafayette and Orinda and 19 points in Dixon. Walnut Creek has not voted Republican for president since Clinton’s win in 1992. Clinton was the first Democratic presidential nominee to win Fairfield since Jimmy Carter defeated President Gerald Ford there in 1976. Although Clinton narrowly lost Moraga in 1992, he narrowly won it in 1996.

In the 1990s, the 10th District had a different configuration. It did not include Solano and Sacramento counties or El Cerrito or Concord; all of San Ramon, Danville, Clayton, Pleasanton, Dublin and Brentwood were in the district, along with Castro Valley and Ashland west of the hills. Assemblyman Bill Baker (R-Danville), a strong conservative, narrowly won CD-10 in 1992 (52%-48%) as Clinton carried the district over President Bush (42%-35%).

In 1996, Clinton won CD-10 again (48%-43%) over Republican nominee Bob Dole. Aided by Clinton’s coattails and heavy spending (more than $1 million) from her then-husband’s Computerland, Inc. fortune, Ellen Tauscher (D-Tassajara Valley) narrowly defeated Rep. Baker. Clinton endorsed Tauscher at a Halloween campaign rally at Oakland’s Jack London Square. Many children in attendance wore costumes. Tauscher won by about 4,100 votes (48.6% Tauscher vs. 47.2% Baker). Tauscher lost in many CD-10 cities that Clinton won, including Livermore and Pleasanton.

The California Supreme Court, which drew legislative districts following the 1990 census, explained its reasoning for drawing CD-10 as it did in its Wilson v. Eu opinion: "District 10 includes all of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties east of the East Bay Hills plus the unincorporated Castro Valley area west of the hills, which had to be included for population equality reasons." 1 Cal.4th 707, 789. Had the Castro Valley area not been added to CD-10 as an afterthought, Tauscher likely would not have been elected.

Had Castro Valley and Ashland not been in district, Tauscher would have lost to Baker because Eden Township (the only portion of CD-10 west of the hills, accounting for just 8% of the total CD-10 vote) gave her a 4,300 vote plurality. She won Ashland (a community in the Bay flatland near Interstate Highway 238) by 69%-25%, a 44 percentage point margin over Baker.

The "925" telephone area code was not created until 1998, but its west-of-hills/east-of-hills geological/political divide is useful for explaining the tenuity of Tauscher's victory in '96 -- Tauscher's big margin in the tiny, Democrat-laden "510" portion of CD-10 (8% of total CD-10 vote) overpowered Baker's small win in the enormous "925" part of the district (92% of total CD-10 vote).

In 2000, CD-10 supported Al Gore over George W. Bush (51%-45%). In the re-districting following the 2000 Census of Population, CD-10 was re-configured to become more Democratic, including the strongly Democratic community of El Cerrito and much of Concord, along with portions of Solano and Sacramento counties. Many of its most Republican areas were transferred to CD-11, a San Joaquin Valley-based district then represented by Richard Pombo (R-Tracy), who was finally ousted by Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) in 2006. Just about all of the houses in San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) and Brentwood within CD-10 have been constructed since 2000.

John Kerry decisively won the new CD-10 over President George W. Bush in 2004 (59%-40%). Kerry lost just two cities with territory within CD-10: Brentwood and Dixon. For the first time in more than a half century, in 2004 Walnut Creek, Livermore and Fairfield backed a Democrat who lost the national popular vote for president.

Barack Obama did even better in 2008, winning CD-10 65%-33% over John McCain. Obama won not only all sixteen cities in CD-10, but also every city in the nine-county Bay Area, a feat that had not been accomplished since the California Secretary of State began reporting presidential vote by cities in 1964. The nearest cities to CD-10 that Obama failed to win in 2008 were Colusa to the north, Paso Robles to the south and Citrus Heights, Galt and Lodi to the east.

Of the eleven CD-10 cities that have been in existence since 1964, Dixon in Solano County is the "bellwether" -- its presidential election returns have mirrored national statistics the best. Dixon has voted for the national winner in 11 of the past 12 presidential elections; it was wrong only in 1976 when it favored Ford over Carter. In 2008, it voted 53.0%-45.0% for Obama-McCain, very close to the national percentages of 53.1%-45.8%. By CalPolitical's measure, Dixon is the sixth best "bellwether" city in California. (The best "presidential bellwether" city in California is Blythe, a city that is along Interstate Highway 10 near the Colorado River and Arizona border.)

San Joaquin County in Congress - 1909 to 2009

Just thirteen men have represented San Joaquin County in the U.S. House of Representatives over the past century. Gerald “Jerry” McNerney became San Joaquin’s latest congressman in 2007, following his defeat of Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy).

1. James Carson Needham (R-Modesto, 1899-1913, defeated)
2. Charles Curry, Sr. (R-Sacramento, 1913-30, died in office)
3. Charles “Forrest” Curry, Jr. (R-Sacramento, 1931-33, defeated)
4. Frank H. Buck, Jr. (D-Vacaville, 1933-42, died in office)
5. J. Leroy Johnson (R-Stockton, 1943-57, defeated)
6. John J. McFall (D-Manteca, 1957-79, defeated)
7. Norman Shumway (R-Stockton, 1979-91, retired)
8. Richard Lehman (D-Sanger, 1983-95, county moved out of district in ’92)
9. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin, 1991-2009, county moved out of district in ’92)
10. Gary Condit (D-Ceres, 1989-2003, county moved into district in ’92, defeated)
11. Richard Pombo (R-Tracy, 1993-2007, defeated)
12. Dennis Cardoza (D-Atwater, 2003-present)
13. Gerald “Jerry” McNerney (D-Pleasanton, 2007-present)

San Joaquin congressmen tend to serve for many years until death or rejection by voters, usually after a scandal. Rarely do they simply retire. Three issues have been of perennial importance to representatives of a county which now has a farm product larger than 14 states: agriculture, foreign trade, and Asian relations.

A century ago, James Carson Needham (R-Modesto) was San Joaquin’s congressman. Born on an emigrant wagon in Carson City, Nev. in 1864, Needham was founder of the Covered Wagon Babies Club. During his 14 years in Congress (1899-1913), he represented most of the San Joaquin Valley. As the West Coast’s sole appointee to the influential Ways and Means committee, he advocated high tariffs on agricultural imports (such as citrus and olive oil) in order to protect California farmers. “Had he been the least bit wobbly on protection, he would not have been appointed,” one newspaper opined. He also supported “pure wine” bills to undercut dried fruit and molasses wines produced in other states. Irrigation was another policy interest as the Valley aspired to upgrade from dry farming. Needham lost his seat in 1912 after San Joaquin was removed from his district.

Charles Curry, Sr. (R-Sacramento) represented San Joaquin, Sacramento, Solano, Yolo, Napa, and Contra Costa counties from 1913 until his death in 1930. He was California Secretary of State from 1899 to 1910, when he ran unsuccessfully for governor. Curry strongly supported California’s Alien Land Law, which restricted property ownership rights for Asian immigrants. “The Japanese are driving the American farmer out of business in California,” he told Congress. “The idea of marriage between whites and Asiatics is revolting,” he added.

As longtime chairman of the House Territories Committee, Curry exerted great influence over Puerto Rican, Hawaiian, and Alaskan affairs – a community on the Alaska Railroad was named for him. Flood control was another policy interest that was key to the region’s development; the Sacramento and Mississippi rivers were the only waterways covered by the first federal flood control act in 1917. Curry obtained federal support for construction of the Stockton ship channel. He also was an aviation advocate who defended the outspoken General “Billy” Mitchell, regarded as the “father of the U.S. Air Force.”

Curry’s death just before the 1930 election set off a three-way write-in vote campaign to determine his replacement. Charles “Forrest” Curry, Jr., longtime aide to his father in Washington, prevailed against state Sen. J.M. Inman (R-Sacramento) and wealthy fruit grower Frank Buck, Jr. (D-Vacaville), both of whom favored ending prohibition. Obliquely criticizing the Curry family, an Inman ad stated, “[Inman] runs on his Own Record … He stands in his Own Shoes.” The son continued his father’s “Curry Service” tradition as Curry Jr. secured new post offices for Lodi and Tracy.

Whereas Curry Sr. amassed enough seniority to become dean of California’s congressional delegation, Curry Jr.’s political career was much shorter. In 1932, Buck ousted him in a re-match. The Great Depression had eroded voters’ faith in Republicans; the Democrats’ “New Deal” offered a new direction. San Joaquin newspaper readers saw dueling ads: Buck’s “The ‘New Deal’ Demands a New Congressman” versus “Cling to Curry … We Do Not Want Any ‘New Deal’ Here – The Present Deal Is the Best for Us.” Radio audiences heard 15-minute paid programs from each camp.

As a Ways and Means committee member in 1935, Buck moved that the “Economic Security Bill” be re-titled “Social Security Act” and stood behind President Franklin Roosevelt as he signed the landmark legislation. Buck repeatedly led efforts to defeat mandatory joint income tax returns, sparing couples in community property states such as California from increased tax bills. He authored laws that cut excise taxes on wine and enhanced Mare Island Naval Yard in Vallejo. A conservative “Bourbon Democrat,” Buck endured a strong primary challenge from a liberal Democrat in 1942. (In the 21^st century, Buck’s legacy lives on through Buck Foundation scholarships awarded to college-bound students from the six counties formerly in his congressional district.)

Buck’s death in 1942 cleared the way for J. Leroy Johnson (R-Stockton) to become the first San Joaquin resident to serve in Congress since the retirement of Rep. Samuel Woods (R-Stockton) in 1903. A major backer of “Forrest” Curry in 1932, Johnson was a Stockton planning commissioner and city attorney before he went to Congress in 1943. His ads touted “A Fighting Man for a War Congress.” A World War I combat pilot, he served on the Military Affairs and Armed Services committees during World War II and the Korean War. Johnson often lauded Warren H. Atherton, a Stockton attorney and National Commander of the American Legion, who became known as the “Father of the G.I. Bill of Rights.”

During World War II, Johnson advocated not only deportation of Japanese aliens but also expatriation of many Japanese American citizens. “I point out that the Japanese are a nonassimilable race,” he explained on the House floor in 1943, “no matter whether they are here for 100 years or 200 years, they will never become assimilated in the way that European races assimilate with the rest of the Americans.”

Making Johnson’s age (68) a campaign issue, Assemblyman John J. McFall (D-Manteca) defeated him in 1956. Newspaper editorials criticized Johnson for his “inaction.” McFall’s ads declared: “Elect A Working Congressman” and “the REAL issue is a COMPETENT Congressman.”

Johnson reminded voters that he authored the Civil Air Patrol Act and claimed responsibility for creation of the Central Intelligence Agency. His ads displayed his photo with the popular President Dwight Eisenhower, then running for re-election. “Vote for a Record Not a Promise,” the ad pleaded, “Keep Roy Johnson on IKE’S Team.”

McFall rose the highest in Congress of all San Joaquin representatives. He was the Majority Whip, the third-highest House officer, from 1973 to 1977. As chairman of the Appropriations transportation subcommittee, he secured funding for the Highway 120 Manteca bypass, among other San Joaquin projects. He backed construction of New Melones and New Hogan dams and supported the Johnson and Nixon Administrations’ funding of the Vietnam Conflict.

San Joaquin County Supervisor Norman Shumway (R-Stockton) defeated McFall in 1978, when all four of the Valley’s then-existing congressional districts turned over. McFall was implicated in the “Koreagate” influence-peddling scandal, leading to persistent articles about his alleged ethical lapses in district newspapers. The House reprimanded him for failing to report a $3,000 campaign contribution from Tongsun Park, a flamboyant South Korean rice broker.

Furthermore, McFall’s series of easy campaigns made him complacent. “John hasn’t had a tough race before, he doesn’t know how to campaign,” former aide Irv Sprague told supporters. McFall’s ads featured endorsements from major national and local political figures with the message, “We NEED John McFall in Congress … he can get the job done!”

An ad of dubious origin from a mysterious “Chinese Committee to Re-Elect Congressman John McFall” run by a “Mr. Wong” appeared in newspapers just before the election. It declared, “It is a proven fact to us that request for aid is given with dispatch and expedience.” McFall narrowly won San Joaquin, but Shumway decisively took the foothill counties added to the district in 1975.

Shumway sat on the Banking, Merchant Marine, and Aging committees during his six terms in Congress. Fluent in Japanese from his service as a Mormon missionary, he led congressional delegations to Japan in the 1980s. Shumway voted against the 1988 legislation that made reparations to Japanese internees during World War II. The only San Joaquin congressman to leave office voluntarily in the 20^th century, Shumway retired in 1990.

In the 1980s, San Joaquin was split into two districts that stretched from the Oregon border to Fresno. Assemblyman Richard Lehman (D-Sanger) was elected in 1982 to a district that included the south county and much of Stockton and encompassed foothill counties in order to pick up his residence in Fresno County. Shumway’s district stretched from Stockton-Lodi to the Mount Shasta region. After Shumway retired, ex-state Sen. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin) represented his portion of San Joaquin for one term.

Gary Condit (D-Ceres) represented the Vernalis area in the 1990s. Linked to Chandra Levy, a former congressional intern from Modesto who was found dead in Washington in 2001, Condit was defeated by Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza (D-Atwater) in the 2002 primary election. Democrats in the state legislature assured Cardoza’s election by drawing central Stockton into his district. In November 2002, Cardoza lost to state Sen. Dick Monteith (R) in Merced and Stanislaus counties, but squeaked into office on the strength of San Joaquin’s votes.

Richard Pombo vaulted from the Tracy City Council into Congress in 1993, after defeating Sacramento County Supervisor Sandra Smoley, a moderate Republican, and Patti Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), wife of the then-State Insurance Commissioner, in a new 11^th Congressional District that covered most of San Joaquin and southern Sacramento counties (Elk Grove). Pombo defeated Smoley by about 5,200 votes (36%-27%) in June 1992 and Garamendi by about 4,000 votes (47.6%-45.6%) that November.

Pombo was among the minority of House Republicans who voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. He rose to the chairmanship of the Resources committee where he advocated reform of environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act. In 2002, Sacramento County and central Stockton, French Camp, and Lathrop were dropped and Republican-leaning communities in Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties were added to the district.

Jerry McNerney, a renewable energy expert who designed windmills in the Altamont Pass, first challenged Pombo in 2004. After winning the Democratic nomination through a write-in campaign, he lost to Pombo by a wide margin (39%-61%) and ran behind John Kerry (who won 45% of the CD-11 presidential vote). Allegations of ethical violations by Pombo subsequently came to light, linking him to Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist who ultimately pled guilty to corruption charges.

In 2006, ex-Rep. Pete McCloskey waged a vigorous primary challenge against Pombo, environmental organizations relentlessly attacked Pombo’s record, and voters’ mailboxes filled with slick booklets. President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, and First Lady Laura Bush appeared for Pombo; former President Bill Clinton campaigned with McNerney. Hundreds of precinct workers registered voters and advocated house-by-house for their candidates.

The “air war” was intense. In recognition of the sprawling district’s political diversity, McNerney’s Valley television ads bluntly declared, “Pombo’s got to go!” where his Bay Area ads emphasized his opposition to the Iraq war. A “Veterans for Pombo” attack ad was pulled in the final days and replaced with one in which Pombo spoke directly to viewers, declaring “I won’t back down when it comes to fighting for the things that I believe in.” The national Republican party spent $1.4 million to aid Pombo, including a television spot which alleged that McNerney would grant billions in public benefits to illegal immigrants. “Americans for Conservation,” an independent expenditure group, ran anti-Pombo T.V. ads. The morning before the election, more than half of all local ads on KXTV concerned the McNerney-Pombo race.

Aided by a countrywide anti-Republican trend, McNerney prevailed in his 2006 re-match, 53% to 47%. It was the only congressional seat to switch parties of the 70 districts in the Pacific Coast states. Pombo spent $4.6 million ($48 per vote) compared to $2.4 million by McNerney ($22 per vote). San Joaquin narrowly favored Pombo, but McNerney dominated the Bay Area counties to become the thirteenth congressman to represent San Joaquin County in the past century.

In 2008, McNerney defeated former Assemblyman Dean Andal of Stockton by a comfortable margin (55%-45%) as Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate in 12 years to win in San Joaquin County. Rising energy prices ($4 per gallon gasoline irked commuters) and plummeting home values (the county’s home foreclosure rate led the nation) were major issues. Andal’s campaign theme was “Energy for America.” McNerney spent $3.0 million ($18 per vote) compared to $1.4 million by Andal ($11 per vote).

In 2009, McNerney was appointed to the Energy and Commerce committee, which is shaping climate change and health care legislation during the Obama Administration. The 11^th Congressional District is again destined to be in the national spotlight in 2010.

Proposition 8 (2008): City-by-City Analysis

California voters last November ratified Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment against marriage equality/gay marriage that stated in full, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The amendment altered California’s due process and equal protection clauses in Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution (California’s version of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). It was the most significant change to this part of the state constitution since voters adopted an amendment against compulsory busing as a public school desegregation measure in the 1979 special statewide election (Proposition 1). Proposition 8 effectively overturned the May 2008 In re Marriage Cases decision of the California Supreme Court that struck down California’s statutes limiting marriage to heterosexual couples (especially Proposition 22-the Knight Initiative with identical text as Proposition 8, but ratified by voters as a statute rather than a constitutional amendment on the March 2000 ballot).

On May 30^th and 31^st, rallies for and against marriage equality were held in Fresno. Marriage equality advocates targeted Fresno, in part, because every city in the San Joaquin Valley voted in favor of Proposition 8 last November. Fresno itself voted 64.7% in favor of Proposition 8 (it had the weakest Yes vote within the six counties of the southern San Joaquin Valley; most cities in that region voted 70%+ in favor of Proposition 8).

CalPoltiCal has done an analysis of last November’s voting returns in all 58 California counties and 480 cities. As others have observed, political party is not necessarily the best predictor of voting on the marriage equality issue. Whereas many reliably Democratic, working class cities (such as Vallejo and Union City in the Bay Area, Compton in Los Angeles County and Colton in the Inland Empire) voted Yes on 8, many traditionally Republican, upscale cities (such as Atherton and Danville in the Bay Area and El Segundo and Westlake Village in southern California) voted No on 8. Here are the findings:

STATEWIDE:

• Voters cast 7.0 million ballots in favor of Proposition 8 and 6.4 million ballots against. The margin of victory for Proposition 8 was 599,602 votes.
• The statewide percentage was 52.3% Yes-47.7% No. The city that came closest to the statewide result was Crescent City, California’s northernmost coastal city (it has voted for the national winner in 11 of the past 12 presidential elections). Crescent City voted 52.1%-47.9% in favor of Proposition 8.
• The “drop-off” for Proposition 8 was remarkably low. Of the 13.7 million ballots cast in November 2008, 13.4 million expressed a Yes or No vote on Proposition 8 (a drop-off of 2.5%). Nearly 13.6 million ballots were cast for president (drop-off of 1.3%). Just 12.3 million total ballots were cast in California’s 53 congressional races (drop-off of 10.3%). In contrast, just 11.99 million voted on the Proposition 11-Redistricting measure (drop-off of 12.7%), the lowest turnout for the twelve statewide ballot measures in that election. This suggests that most Californians have made up their mind on the marriage equality issue; conversions rather than new voters likely will be key in any future “re-votes” on this issue.
• 328 cities (68 percent) voted “Yes on 8;” 152 cities (32 percent) voted “No.”
• The strongest Yes on 8 city was 81.7% in Maricopa in western Kern County (followed by Shafter in Kern County and Kingsburg in Fresno County).
• The strongest No on 8 city was 87.4% in Berkeley (followed by Fairfax in Marin County and West Hollywood).
• The most evenly divided city was Fremont in Alameda County. The split was 49.98% Yes-50.02% No (just a 33 vote lead for No out of 73,683 votes cast).
• Three of the strongest six Yes on 8 cities (Shafter, Wasco, Dinuba), along with many others, supported Barack Obama for president. None of the No on 8 cities supported John McCain for president, but many No on 8 cities supported George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004 (e.g., Livermore and Pleasanton in Alameda County).

CENTRAL VALLEY/FOOTHILLS/SIERRA/NORTHSTATE:

• All cities in the Central Valley voted Yes on 8 except three: Sacramento, Davis and Chico.
• As stated above, all 62 cities in the eight San Joaquin Valley counties (including the presidential election bellwethers of Modesto, Merced, Madera and Fresno) voted Yes on 8.
• Livingston in Merced County (most famous as the headquarters of Foster Farms) voted Democratic in 12 of the past 12 presidential elections, yet voted 70% Yes on 8.
• Live Oak, a “swing city” in Sutter County, voted 53% for Obama and 74% Yes on 8.
• Just six cities in the Foothills, Sierra and trans-Sierra voted No on 8: Amador, South Lake Tahoe, Mammoth Lakes and all three cities in Nevada County (Grass Valley, Nevada City and Truckee). Nevada and Mono counties were the only inland counties wherein all cities voted No on 8 (but their unincorporated areas voted Yes).
• Just two cities in inland California north of Chico voted No: Dunsmuir and Mt. Shasta in Siskiyou County.

INLAND EMPIRE (San Bernardino and Riverside counties) & IMPERIAL COUNTY:

• All Inland Empire cities voted Yes on 8 except one: Palm Springs.
• All Imperial County cities voted Yes on 8 as all simultaneously favored Barack Obama for president.
• San Bernardino County (2007 population: 2.0 million) was the most populous county wherein no city voted No on 8.
• Colton, the most reliable Democratic community in San Bernardino County, voted 66% Yes on 8.
• Coachella, which has voted Democratic in 12 of the past 12 presidential elections, supported Proposition 8 with 67%.
• Rancho Mirage (most famous as the retirement home of the late President Gerald Ford), which was never voted Democratic for president since its incorporation in 1973, voted 49.0% No on 8 and 46.1% for Obama. It is one of the few communities statewide where the No on 8 vote percentage exceeded the Obama vote percentage.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY:

• Of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County, just 21 voted No on 8. This figure stands in stark contrast to the 74 cities that Barack Obama won in the same election. Fifty-three (53) cities in Los Angeles County alone backed Obama for president yet supported Proposition 8.
• Eight of the 21 L.A. County communities where No on 8 prevailed are beach communities: Malibu, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Long Beach. Another No on 8 city, Signal Hill, is surrounded by another (Long Beach).
• Three are Westside communities: Beverly Hills, Culver City and West Hollywood.
• Three are in the Pasadena area: Pasadena, South Pasadena and Sierra Madre.
• Four are small, upscale hill cities west of the San Fernando Valley: Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills and Westlake Village.
• The two remaining No on 8 cities in L.A. County are Burbank and Claremont, a college town.
• Noticeably missing in the above list are stalwart Democratic cities. Many Democratic strongholds voted strongly Yes on 8. Carson, Compton, Gardena, Inglewood, Irwindale and Lynnwood for example, voted 60+ percent Yes.
• Some traditionally Republican, upscale communities voted narrowly in favor of Proposition 8: Avalon, La Canada-Flintridge and Palos Verdes Estates.

ORANGE COUNTY:

• All cities in Orange County voted Yes on 8 except four: Aliso Viejo, Costa Mesa, Irvine and Laguna Beach.
• Dana Point and Newport Beach came close to voting No on 8. They voted Yes 51.1% and 51.3% respectively.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY:

• Four cities in San Diego County, all coastal communities, voted No on 8: Del Mar, Encinitas, San Diego and Solana Beach.
• National City, the most reliably Democratic community in the county, voted 66% in favor of Proposition 8.

CENTRAL COAST:

• Monterey County delivered a “split verdict” on a coastal/inland fault line, with all seven of the coastal cities (Monterey, Carmel, etc.) voting No and all five of the Salinas Valley/U.S. 101 corridor cities (Salinas, etc.) voting Yes.
• San Benito County also had a split result, with San Juan Bautista voting No and Hollister voting Yes.
• All four cities in Santa Cruz County voted No, with a narrow No vote in Watsonville.
• Just seven cities voted No on 8 in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. Along with the three cities that share their names with their counties, the No cities were Morro Bay, Carpinteria, Goleta and Ojai.
• Thousand Oaks in Ventura County narrowly voted Yes (50.4%); it voted Republican for 11 of the past 12 presidential elections (Obama was the first Democrat ever to win that city since incorporation in 1964).

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA & NORTH COAST:

• The Bay Area & North Coast region is the one part of California where No on 8 dominated. In the coastal counties north of San Francisco, just three cities voted “Yes on 8”: Rio Dell, Fortuna and Crescent City.
• Just 18 cities of the 101 cities in the nine-county Bay area voted “Yes on 8”:
• Six of the Bay Area’s “Yes on 8” cities were in Solano County (Vallejo, Suisun City, Fairfield, Vacaville, Dixon and Rio Vista). Benicia was the only Solano County city that voted No.
• Another six of the Bay Area’s “Yes on 8” cities were in Contra Costa County (Hercules and San Pablo in West County plus Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley and Brentwood in East County).
• The only Alameda County city that voted “Yes on 8” was Union City, but the win for No was razor-thin in Fremont (a switch of 17 votes would have made it a “Yes” city), Hayward, Livermore and Newark.
• American Canyon was the only Napa County city that voted Yes.
• Three of the 15 cities in Santa Clara County voted Yes: Milpitas, Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
• East Palo Alto was the only San Mateo County that voted Yes. A Democratic stronghold, East Palo Alto was the only city in the U.S. 101 corridor that voted Yes on 8 between Morgan Hill south of San Jose and Rio Dell near Eureka.
• Vallejo, Hercules, East Palo Alto and Union City were the only Bay Area cities with Bay frontage that voted Yes on 8.
• San Francisco and all cities in Marin and Sonoma counties voted No.
• Lake County has emerged as a statewide bellwether in the past 20 years; it has one of the best records of supporting the statewide winner (it voted 52.0%-48.0% on Proposition 8, very close to the statewide result of 52.3%-47.7%). Lake County’s two cities and unincorporated area voted Yes on 8.

In the nine-county Bay Area, the Yes on 8 votes were concentrated in five sub-areas:

• Northern Solano County’s rapidly-growing “swing” cities (Fairfield, Vacaville, Dixon, Rio Vista),
• Eastern Contra Costa County’s rapidly-growing “swing” cities (Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood),
• Southern Santa Clara County’s rapidly-growing cities (Morgan Hill and Gilroy),
• Southern Alameda County/Milpitas (Union City, Fremont, Newark, Milpitas) and
• Working-class, ethnically-diverse Democratic stalwart cities (Vallejo, Pittsburg, San Pablo, Hayward, East Palo Alto).

The cities in the first three sub-areas tend to be “swing” communities in close elections. The latter two sub-areas should be of most concern to the pro-marriage equality advocates. Many of these cities have voted reliably for Democratic candidates in every election during the past 50 years; they generally are so loyal to the Democratic party and progressive causes that their support is assumed (and arguably taken for granted).

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS:

1. White Collar Target: If Proposition 8 is to be overturned, the most sympathetic ears (and perhaps financial support) for marriage equality are likeliest to be found in traditionally Republican, upscale communities such as those on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (a McCain “hot spot”) in Los Angeles County, Thousand Oaks in Ventura County and Rancho Mirage in Riverside County. As a rule of thumb, the closer a community is to saltwater and/or the more nestled it is within picturesque hills, the more likely it is to be friendly to marriage equality.
2. Blue Collar Target: A second set of targets is reliably Democratic, working class communities such as Vallejo, Compton and Colton, many of which voted two to one against marriage equality in 2008. Many of these cities probably cannot be converted to favor marriage equality, but reducing the number of anti-marriage equality votes is crucial so that other areas of the state can provide the winning margin.
3. Swing City Target: The third set of targets is bellwether/“battleground” communities such as Lakeport and Hollister, places that “pick the winners” of most statewide elections. Marriage equality supporters need to talk “to” (not “at”) people in these communities, listen to their concerns and adjust arguments accordingly. As stated above, conversions rather than new voters likely will be key in any future “re-votes” on the marriage equality issue.

Look to these cities/areas for possible conversion (Yes on 8 vote in 2008 – statewide was 52.3%):

• Central Valley/Foothills/Sierra/Northstate: Dunsmuir (49.2%), Grass Valley (49.8%), unincorporated Yolo County (51.5%), West Sacramento (52.6%)

• Bay Area & North Coast: Newark (49.0%), Livermore (49.1%), Millbrae (49.2%), Colma (49.3%), Hayward (49.6%), Ferndale (49.6%), Clayton (49.7%), Daly City (49.9%), Fremont (50.0%), Morgan Hill (50.3%), Gilroy (51.2%), Hercules (51.3%), Union City (51.7%), East Palo Alto (51.7%), Lakeport (51.7%), Unincorporated Lake County (51.8%), San Pablo (52.0%), Crescent City (52.1%), Vallejo (52.6%)
• Central Coast: Marina (49.2%), Watsonville (49.2%), Thousand Oaks (50.4%)
• Los Angeles County: Avalon (51.2%), Palos Verdes Estates (51.4%), La Canada-Flintridge (51.6%), Monrovia (51.7%)
• Inland Empire: Rancho Mirage (51.0%)
• Orange County: Costa Mesa (49.5%), Dana Point (51.1%), Newport Beach (51.3%)
• San Diego County: La Mesa (50.6%), Carlsbad (51.0%)

If there is a “re-vote” on the marriage equality issue at a future statewide election, which appears likely, then the abortion-minors-parental notification issue (Proposition 85 in 2006, Proposition 4 in 2008) offers a precedent. Proposition 4 had the second-largest number of votes cast for it among the twelve statewide ballot measures in November 2008. The vote was 48.0% Yes-52.0% No. This was a slight improvement for the “yes” vote over a similar measure that appeared on the November 2006 ballot as Proposition 85 (45.8% Yes-54.2% No). Although Proposition 85 (2006)/Proposition 4 (2008) is a “conservative”-sponsored ballot measure, its movement in support in just two years suggests that statewide sentiment is not so ossified on a divisive social issue that a repeat appearance on the ballot in rapid succession can bring about a different outcome.